PRAVEEN BHATIA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 1181 · Decided: 05-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 3 S.C.R. 1181 
1 
PRAVEEN BHATIA 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1536 of 2009) 
MARCH 5, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
c. 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
Service Law: Misconduct - Air Force Officer - Belated 
filing of property return - Held: Amounts to misconduct -
c 
Order of compulsory retirement upheld -Air Force Act, 1950 
- s.19 -Air Force Rules, 1969 - r.15. 
Judicial review: Quantum of punishment - Scope of 
interference. 
D 
~ 
Words and phrases: Misconduct - Meaning of. 
Appellant was officer in Air Force. A notice was 
issued on him to show cause as to why he should not 
be dismissed or removed from service. Appellant did not E 
receive necessary documents and was even not allowed 
inspection. He filed writ petition before High Court which 
was dismissed. Thereafter terms of reference were 
received by him and he also got copy of findings of Court 
of Enquiry. Thereafter he submitted his reply to show 
F 
.. 
cause notice pointing out that there was no misconduct 
warranting any action from respondents and the failure 
to submit the property returns within time was not a 
misconduct serious enough to warrant such gr.ave 
punishment. Appellant was compulsorily retired. G 
Challenging the order of compulsory retirement the writ 
petition was filed. It was his stand that the court of 
enquiry exonerated him on all counts except late filing of 
•, 
property returns. The stand of the respondent before 
1181 
H 
1182 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 3 S.C.R. 
A High Court was that the transactions were between 1981 
to 1986 and the return was belatedly filed after about six 
years on 23.3.1992 therefore the conduct was most 
unbecoming of an officer of the Air Force. The High Court 
acQepted the stand of the respondent and dismissed the 
B petition. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. The Scheme of the disciplinary rules in 
general is to identify the conduct which is made 
C punishable and then to provide for the various 
punishments which may be imposed for the acts which 
are inconsistent with such conduct. The range of 
actiivities which may amount to acts which are 
inc~nsistent with the interest of public service and not 
D befitting the status, position and dignity of a public 
servant are so varied that it would be impossible for the 
employer to exhaustively enumerate such acts and treat 
the categories of misconduct as closed. Therefore, the 
word "misconduct" is not capable of precise definition. 
E But at the same time, the word "misconduct" on reflection 
receives its connotation from the context, the 
delinquency in performance and its effect on the 
discipline and the nature of the duty. The act complained 
of must bear a forbidden quality or character and its 
F amll>it has to be construed with reference to the subject-
matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having 
regard to the scope of the statute and the public purpose 
it seeks to serve. [Paras 7 and 8) [1187-B; 1187-E, F, G] 
Union of India and Ors. v. Haljeet Singh Sandhu (2001 
G (5) SCC 593;Baldev Singh Gandhi v. State of Punnjab and 
Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 667 and State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram 
Singh Ex. Constable AIR (1992) SC 2188, relied on. 
2. "Misconduct" as stated in Batt's Law of Master and 
H 
+ 
PRAVEEN BHATIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
1183 
Servant (4th Edition) is "comprised positive acts and not A 
mere neglects or failures." The definition of the word as 
given in Ballentine's Law Dictionary (148th Edition) is "A 
transgression of some established and definite rule of 
action, where no discretion is left except what necessity 
may demand, it is a violation of definite law, a forbidden 
B 
act. It differs from carelessness." It may be generally 
stated that the conduct rules of the Government and 
public sector corporations constitute a code of 
permissible acts and behaviour of their servants. The 
scheme of the Conduct Rules, almost invariably, is to first c 
of all enunciate a general rule of conduct and behaviour 
followed by specific prohibitions and restrictions. For 
example, Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) 
Rules, 1964 which occurs under the heading "General" 
provides that every Government servant shall at all times: 
0 
(i) maintain absolute integrity; (ii) maintain devotion to 
duty; and do nothing which is unbecoming of a 
Government servant. [Paras 12 and 14] [1188-0, E; 1188-
D, E, F, G, H; 1189-A] 
M.M. Malhotra v. Union of India & Or

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.